Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The Defendants were punished by fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 17, 2017, Defendant B, at the G parking lot located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 17, 2017, the victim’s face was taken during a dispute, and the victim’s body was fighting, and the victim’s body was launched.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as the lower end of the left-hand skes that need to be treated for about six weeks.

2. Defendant A, at the above date and place, was drinking the victim’s face while disputing the victim’s B at the above time and place, and was boomed with the victim’s face by cutting down the victim’s blick and pushed down the victim’s blick, and carried out physical fighting with the victim.

As a result, the defendant puts the victim with the hands, shoulder, and scarcity that need to be treated for about three weeks.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant B]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written diagnosis of injury (Defendant A);

1. Each testimony of H and B;

1. Statement made by the police of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on death diagnosis certificates and photographs;

1. Each penal provision Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of each fine);

1. The defense counsel's assertion of Defendant A in relation to the Trade Union Act 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Act on the Attractiond in the Nowon-gu, asserts that the illegality is dismissed as a substantial act permitted under political defense or social norms, since the defendant's defense at the Nowon-gu, who was the host player, was unilaterally damaged by various types of flags, etc., on the face of the defendant, who was from the host player, caused violence to one's face unilaterally from several flags, etc.

On the other hand, the defendants' statements are more reliable because there are detailed differences and statements favorable to each person.

It is difficult to select.

Since H had witnessed the case at the site of H and had speech, his statement is given priority.